I know Dan has been busy, and I get that, but seriously. Not anywhere that I see his online output has he posted anything offering sympathy to the young woman brutally murdered because she was white (based on the recorded comments of the serial felon that seems like the likely reason), nor to Charlie Kirk's family, friends, or coworkers. Again. I know he's busy, but not to busy for multiple FB posts. What can we glean from this, almost, silence on two of the biggest news stories of the past month? What kind of person demands that others "embrace grace", yet chooses another path for themselves.
I know he's done the perfunctory, vague, bland, comments when he decries "all" violence and doesn't want "harm" to come to anyone just like always. No posts, yet he bitched about me not posting about the MN legislator shooting, while ignoring the reality that I posted on it, condemning the shooter, within a few hours of learning about it.
He claims that the GOP didn't respond in a way he personally found to be suitable, yet a simple comparison shows that it's the DFL who lacks the grace he prates on about.
20 comments:
No surprise there.
Craig, have I EVER addressed any individual act of violence in a post?
No. I'm pretty sure I haven't.
That you want me to say specifically about what is obvious doesn't mean I'll start. I'm not obliged to jump through any of your hypocritical hoops.
The woman who was killed, that was awful.
The conservative kid who did that school shooting the same day as Kirk's murder, that was terrible.
The murder of Kirk, also terrible.
Kirk's constant sexist, demeaning attacks against black people, women LGBTQ folks? Terrible.
The wholesale slaughter of Palestinians, awful.
Hamas' attack 2 years ago, deplorable.
The awful, sometimes criminal harassment and disappearances of immigrants, terrible.
Deadly violence against innocent people is always deplorable, as are non-lethal attacks and acts of oppression against innocent people, especially historically oppressed groups.
I don't post about ANY of the individual acts of violence and oppression, any more than YOU talk about all of them.
The difference is, if you ask, you can count on me always being opposed to it.
Would that the same was true for you/you all.
People who are concerned or outraged about violence and oppression ONLY when it happens to them and their allies have not yet reached an adult stage of moral reasoning.
Grow up.
Your pervert felon has just ordered the extra-judicial murders of three boats full of people over the last few weeks. These are illegal and immoral.
I GET that the most dishonest president ever has assured his useful idiots that these were "bad guys," but he did so with zero support.
Where did YOU condemn or even raise a concern about THOSE assassinations?
You're a hypocrite... you ALL are and simply have zero credibility on moral issues.
I and Democrats condemned the assassination of Kirk. Will you condemn these assassinations of unknown Venezuelans BY THE PRESIDENT?
If not, shut the hell up.
Your moral compass is broken.
And here's where you conservative echo chamber has betrayed you...
"What can we glean from this, almost, silence on two of the biggest news stories of the past month?"
Mr Kirk's death, yes. That was one of the biggest news stories this month.
But sadly, this blonde white woman was just one of dozens... hundreds? - of murders in the past weeks and months. Why single it out?
And not to mention Trump's ongoing autocratic takeover of the US, Or at least the GOP... His political assassinations, his fascist abductions of innocent people, his gulag coming and going, conservatives celebrating these death camps like they once celebrated lynching, this administration's continued attempts at taking over colleges, schools, law firms, media attacks... there is so much unprecedented level of power grabs that scholars and historians... he'll, even Ted Cruz in the latest assault on free speech...
Sadly, yet another person choosing violence and harming an innocent person doesn't rise above all the other murders and abuses of liberty.
But I get that you probably don't see ANY of that.
Do you ghouls not worry how overtly your racism, xenophobia is showing up when you're FINALLY concerned about an immigrant's welfare... when she's a young blonde woman?
I don't have time to search your blog and FB page right now. But I find it hard to believe that you haven't.
If that is the case, what is strange is you insistence the we condemn specific acts of violence, while you apparently acknowledge that you refuse to do so.
I'm not demanding that you jump through any hoops, at all. Demanding hoop jumping is your thing and I don't want to tread on your territory. What I'm doing, again, is pointing out your hypocrisy in bitching that I haven't (for example) posted about the MN legislator shootings (in a way that you approve of), when you haven't posted about multiple examples of left wing violence.
As an aside, proudly pointing out that you don't post about condemnations of specific acts of left wing violence isn't the flex you think it is.
"Kirk's constant sexist, demeaning attacks against black people, women LGBTQ folks?"
Interesting. I'd be willing to bet that you can't provide an example of each of these horrible "attacks" you claim exist. It also seems like your using these alleged "attacks" to justify Kirk's assassination.
I see you ignored Hamas continued holding of hostages, torturing hostages, brutal killings of "collaborators", theft/sale of food aid, continued attacks o civilians, use of civilians as human shields, and the rest of Hamas' atrocities. I also see you've described Israel's actions as "genocide", while ignoring actual genocide elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa.
I appreciate your desperate need to establish a false moral equivalence between these actions, as much as I appreaciate your double standard in demanding that we criticize individual actions in ways that you approve of, while you hide behind these bullshit blanket/vague/general half heated "condemnations".
You're more vitriolic against Trump than against Hamas, or left wing violence.
I've expressed concern about the boat attacks by Trump, and I've criticized him for those actions.
Why must I jump through your hoops and do so again?
"I and Democrats condemned the assassination of Kirk."
I guess it's time to finally post more examples of leftists/progressives/democrats/your side celebrating/justifying/laughing about Kirk's assassination. So you can not condemn those as well.
"But sadly, this blonde white woman was just one of dozens... hundreds? - of murders in the past weeks and months. Why single it out?"
Unfortunately, you are correct. There have been dozen's, perhaps hundreds, of murders in the past month almost all of them in deep blue urban areas. Why did this one get traction (and not the mass shooting/murder in a homeless encampment in MPLS), it's pretty damn simple.
1. It's on fucking video from start to finish.
2. It's fucking brutal and completely unprovoked.
3. The killer admits that it was racially motivated.
4. It is a fucking excellent example of the fucking carnage that left wing political policies have brought us. The killer had a long string of violent crimes, and he was walking the streets to kill again thanks to a "justice" system that doesn't seem to care much about the victims.
5. I've mentioned much more this this one example, and done so in the context of the left wing policies that have allowed these recent crimes.
6. I've also posted the data that imprisoning repeat violent offenders would cut crime by over 75%.
7. It's more about the hypocrisy of the ASPL and the MSM, than about the actual crimes.
The ONLY reason why her "race" matters is because of the hypocrisy. Had this been a white guy killing a black woman (and bragging that he got the "N*****) y'all and the MSM would have been all over it.
I get it, you can't justify your silence, so you lie. Sad that your moral compass is so badly missing the mark. You're correct, I don't see what doesn't exist. Just like you don't see the tyranny of random district judges thinking that they can dictate policy nationwide.
I'll simply note that you clearly don't see the times when I criticize Trump or his administration for things I don't agree with or question.
As noted elsewhere, her race is immaterial to the story other than as an illustration of the hypocrisy of the ASPL and the MSM and the denials from those two about the clear racial motive of the killer.
Her immigration status (as a legal immigrant who was working her ass off to succeed in the US), also has no bearing on the story and the outrage. But your attempts to throw up irrelevant diversions are pathetic as usual.
I'll note that Dan didn't address one of the most recent lies propagated by the ASPL and MSM in his responses. The lie that there is some sort of equivalency between the GOP response to the MN legislator shootings, and the Kirk assassination is one that folx like Dan will cling to despite all evidence demonstrating that their narrative is bullshit.
One final note. I've posted multiple examples of the vicious attacks on Kirk and the gleeful/celebratory response to his death. Yet Dan doesn't comment on those. He doesn't express his outrage over their actions, nor does he specifically condemn them. Instead he pretends, here, that the left isn't doing what the left is clearly doing. It's hard to acknowledge when folx on your side do horrible/vile things and show so little grace. It's hard when your pollyannaish views about your political philosophy are shown to be bullshit. It's hard to admit when the policies that you support have caused literal harm to literal innocent people. It's hard to admit that real genocide is happening, while focused on a false genocide.
I guess it's easier to hide, than acknowledge reality. It's one of the reasons I regularly criticize Trump for things I disagree with. It's healthy and cathartic to look at ones' own side of the political aisle critically and to speak up when appropriate.
"Kirk's constant sexist, demeaning attacks against black people, women LGBTQ folks? Terrible."
Charlie Kirk didn't attack anyone, he wasn't sexist, etc. PROOF of your claim, please? All Charlie did was speak truth and people like YOU, Danny Girl, and your ilk, HATE truth-- a deep, deep hate for truth.
While Dan makes big claims and promises, he rarely delivers. In this case, he's either a gullible idiot who's uncritically bought the lies about what Kirk said or he's chosen to believe and repeat a lie/slander.
Kirk's entire public life is available on video, and Dan makes this false and slanderous claim without even bothering to provide proof. Dan is showing himself to be a lazy, uninformed, idiot who's quick to repeat slander and lies.
Strangely enough, he's the kind of person he spews vitriol at when he disagrees.
Dan, being a loathsome pervert, "hasn't seen" proof of those bombed in international waters were drug-runners. Yet, this pervert's pervert has no evidence that were a family of pleasure boaters enjoying a trip on the high seas. Dan, being an inveterate liar, expects us to believe Trump is indiscriminately killing, arresting and/or deporting people with absolutely no evidence aside from Dan's belief Trump is a racist, anti-foreigner despot. Dan's a dumbass.
"Tren de Aragua was officially designated by the White House as a Foreign Terrorist Organization back in July. That designation changes the equation. These are not simply drug runners operating a business model we happen to disapprove of — they are transnational terrorists whose operations directly kill Americans, destabilize communities, and fund violence across the hemisphere. In that context, the strike looks less like vigilante justice and more like counter-terrorism.
This was a foreign-based terrorist network, operating on the high seas, and the U.S. took decisive action before poison reached our shores. America has every right to defend itself against such threats.
America cannot allow cartels, now formally recognized as terrorists, to operate with impunity. But we also need leaders who can defend strong policies without appearing cavalier about life and death. The strike was justified."
---from an AmericanThinker article written by Greg Richter on 9/8/25
So Dan believes that our law enforcement, military and Homeland Security people are as stupid as Dan is, and don't monitor and track the movements of terrorists and cartels. Yeah. Right.
Dan never listened to Kirk, except perhaps for out-of-context snippets. He never listened fully to anyone who isn't queer, marxist or anti-Christ as he is.
It seems relatively clear from listening to Dan describe what "conservatives" say, that his listening is shallow and not about learning to say the least. I'd be willing to bet that he's never actually listened to an entire conversation from Kirk, and probably hasn't even listened to the edited clips.
As I've expressed concern about the blowing up of boats, even if they are drug traffickers, I see no reason to rehash that.
I will say that Dan has trouble with the difference between apprehended and kidnapped. That LE is detaining or arresting people whom they have probable cause of suspected violations of the law is not nefarious in the least. What IS nefarious, if not evil, is that "sanctuary states/cities" are harboring and protecting violent felons from being arrested because they've violated immigration law. "Protect and serve", my ass.
I'm still not totally on board with the notion that designating someone a "terrorist organization" equates to a an unlimited hunting license, but it's not significantly different from the old fashioned "presidential finding" which allowed for violation of US law.
One can argue whether or not the designation was appropriately applied. I believe common street gangs are worthy of some form of terrorist designation. Law enforcement already knows who they are, too.
But once that designation is applied, different rules apply. Then, the only issue is whether or not the target is truly of the terrorist group. Anyone who wishes to criticize this action needs to bring their own evidence showing the targeting of drug runners is erroneous or that the action itself is somehow out beyond the Constitutional authority of the executive branch.
It seems more than obvious that the "War on Drugs" needs to either be surrendered (which is what many lefties and libertarians want) or escalated to a level such as this...if not more so. I would argue the cost of doing nothing is far, far higher and more devastating than taking the fight to the cartel suppliers.
Blowing these drug runners out of the water is the right thing to do.
I'm not sure how you get terrorism from street gangs, but whatever. It seems strange to me that a president can simply snap their fingers, designate a drug gang as a terrorist group, and start blowing shit up.
So what are these "different rules"? Where might one find them? Why is the executive branch all of a sudden above criticism at this point? The executive branch does need to abide by US law, and it seems incumbent on the them to explain under what authority that are taking these actions. By all means, provide the constitutional authority for blowing up alleged criminals in international or other countries waters.
What an interesting dichotomy. The notion that there are only 3 options, seems strange and limiting. That we are somehow limited to surrendering in the "war on drugs", doing nothing, or blowing up alleged drug smugglers seems to be arbitrarily limiting our options.
Why limit the blowing up to just underlings on a few boats? Why not blow up their processing plants? Send in snipers to take out the cartel leaders? Use B-2s so they don't know what happened. Why not just invade Nicaragua?
Look, in a world where I made up the rules, I'd take out every drug dealer and supplier, and destroy all of their infrastructure. I sympathize with the idea of blowing shit up. But just because you think it's right, doesn't mean it's legal.
"Kirk's constant sexist, demeaning attacks against black people, women LGBTQ folks?"
I'm not sure what the "?" at the end is for as this seems to simply be a claim of fact. The reality is that Dan cannot/will not provide proof of this claim, nor is it likely that he'd pay any attention that the myriad of people (black, white, gay, straight) who've debunked these sorts of claims.
Post a Comment